|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 11:06 PM February 4th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Did she step on a man's throat on her way into the studio?
Good thing the place didn't catch fire; she would have perished in there waiting for some nice man to come along and sacrifice his life to save hers.
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:37 PM February 4th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The book is good, it has many good facts and opinions. But, I do not agree with everything she has to say. Some of her premises are part of our whole problem. Anyway, she is an ally, and a good one. I have suggested this book to a number of Women, and Men. I will continue to do so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by amperro on 12:29 AM February 5th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Kate O'Beirne is opposed to women in combat (meaning MEN have to bear the full burden). An "ally" who expects only men to do the dying is more of a threat to men's rights than a traditional liberal feminist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:58 AM February 5th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
She is for the traditional relationship between Men and Women. She is for traditional marriage. She debunks many feminist lies in her book. She is not the enemy, she is a voice for a very large movement and philosophy that has been around for a very long time. That movement chnages its' political perspectives like the ever changing winds. Hence my previous statement that I do not agree with everything she says, nor do I agree with all of her premises. But, she is an ally now. We can't afford to alianate an ally when we seem to have so few that care, including Men. It seems that we have one side that wants to beat all Women up, and another side that wants to lick their feet. The war situation will never be cured until we cure our government, our history will tell you that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 04:16 PM February 5th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
"She is for the traditional relationship between Men and Women."
-- which is bad news for men AND for women.
"She is for traditional marriage."
Is that code for "She is against gays having the right to marry"?
boy genteel
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:26 PM February 5th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I personaly believe that the marriage as it was concepted was designed to raise Children. I have no problem with social contracts between People of any gender. The concept of a social contract was shot down before it got started, and it would have had a better chance than that of same sex marriages. The reason for this was that the corporations and the government didn't want social contracts because they would lose money; health benefits, etc. The way the economic structure is designed it takes two People together to survive, hence the real need for social contracts. The institution of marriage is not a bad concept, it is the politics of the current times that have made marriage a living hell in most cases. Social contracts would have the same benefits as a marriage, except for adopting Children. That is why the propaganda machine forced the issue of same sex marriages, because they knew it would never fly. More smoke and mirrors, more innocent People being duped for the elites purposes. I am for the natural way myself. I do not try to impose my wishes on anyone else, and I don't want them to force anything on me. So, please don't try and insinuate that I am against gays, I don't agree with the life style, but I am not trying to impose my beliefs on anyone. If one were to consider the benefits of social contracts, one would see that it removes the sexual choice of the individuals totaly, how much fairer could that be? In so far as O'Beirne, she is a self proclaimed Roman Catholic. As I said, I do not agree with some of her premises. No fight here....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roger on 11:24 AM February 5th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, but I'm opposed to women in combat also. It isn't that I think female life more valuable than male life, it's just that it compromises the effectiveness of a fighting force to have women in it. Sure, for the sake of "fairness" and for the sake of scoring debating points with the feminists, we can insist on women in combat, if it's worth it to weaken our defenses to the point that anyone could beat us. Whether we like it or not, whether it's "fair" or not, combat is a man's job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:56 AM February 5th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Roger, nothing to be sorry about. In reality there are very few Women that are capable of serving in a combat situation. If the basic rules were to be held for all with no exceptions made for gender then we would see a lot less Females going to combat. On the other hand Women seem to do fine as pilots, and other non-martial type positions. Politics suck don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 04:18 PM February 5th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"Kate O'Beirne is opposed to women in combat (meaning MEN have to bear the full burden). An 'ally' who expects only men to do the dying is more of a threat to men's rights than a traditional liberal feminist."
Yes, I agree with that. Put me in a foxhole with any feminist before putting me in any situation with a "traditionalist" woman.
bg
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by oregon dad on 01:15 PM February 5th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Obierne did a good job.
But the interviewer lacked sincerity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by JM on 02:33 PM February 5th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
I saw the interview. Yes, I think you are right about the interviewer. She should have done a much better job. The interviewer had a smirk on her face for about half the time. It seemed to me to be about as much smirk as she thought she could get away with. She was probably sending a message to the feminists watching the show. The message being that she didn’t agree with the subject matter of the book but had to interview the author because it was her job.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 02:33 PM February 5th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Obierne did a good job.
But the interviewer lacked sincerity.
I, too, was underwhelmed by the interviewer. I had the sense that she is a feminist. Given that, I thought she did a decent job of keeping her own politics at bay while conducting the interview.
Here's some info on the interviewer:
"Jodi Enda, former president of the Women and Journalism Symposium, who covers on politics, culture, and gender issues for publications including the American Prospect, Mother Jones, and Lifetime magazine."
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 12:10 AM February 6th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate a number of things O'Beirne has written. She deserves credit for these.
THAT BEING SAID, I DO NOT believe she deserves the credit she seems to be appropriating to herself.
Consider the following statement (pg. xvi "Women who make the world worse..."):
"Because radical feminists specialize in a moral intimidation that declares men guilty as a class, other women have to take on the women who make the world worse. In these pages you'll meet not only the women, fawned over vy the media, who make the world worse but the truly courageous women who make the world better by defending our schools, families, military, and sports from the feminist assault."
1. No Kate. What has kept men frozen has been the lies they never suspected women would tell. e.g. Norma McCorvey (of Roe v. Wade infame) was lying when she said she was raped. To her credit, she has come clean, but the damage is done. The Navy Tailhook scandal...known liars in that incident. ad infinitum.
Men are waking up to the fact that they have been lied to and lied about. They aren't frozen anymore. The last thing needed is a bunch of 'heroic' women running in to take the credit from a massive number of long suffering, honest, upright men who kept plodding along and taking the abuse; these men are waking up to the fact that they are going to have to do something with or without Kate's heroic help. Female valorizing of any kind at this point is sickening. (Yes, I know, Kate fought ERA, women in the military, etc. -- I personally would have been much more grateful if she had alerted men to the possibility of lying so that they could defend themselves.)
2. I will give Phyllis Schlafley her due any day and twice on Sunday. She has EEEAAARRRRNED it! Not sure I can say the same for the women who have supposedly supported her. I'm sure they were there, but I've never ever met one of these women, nor seen them defend anything. Ever! Further, Phyllis urges men to 'get up and fight for your rights', unlike Kate who rallies her girlfriends to save men (see the credits at the front of the book).
3. Some of the true heroes, in my opinion, are people she quotes such as Warren Farrell and Hoff-Sommers (although even Christina pulled the 'men are being destroyed, but this is hurting women' in the title of her first book on 'Who Stole Feminism -- How Women have betrayed WOMEN'). Not to mention: Robert Bork (see his chapter on feminism in 'Slouching Towards Gomorrah'), Clarence Thomas, etc.
If the above seems vindictive and petty, consider what it is to profit off of the misery of others.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
C-Span2 BookTV had an interview this evening with Kate O'Beirne, author of "Women Who Make the World Worse." It will be replayed tomorrow at 6 and 9 PM. (Apparently that's Eastern Standard Time.) She did a fine job.